Is There A Consensus on Reformed View Regarding translation and Sources?

Is There A Consensus on Reformed View Regarding translation and Sources?

I do not think that the LBCF addresses the issue of which textual sources, and which English translation is to be seen as being the real ones for use, as it seems to address the concept of the Originals themselves being inspired and without any errors/mistakes in them.

Does the LBCF speak to the broader issues of which source and translation than suitable to be used?

Many will argue chapter 1 section 8 of the WCF and 2LBCF, specifically the phrase "were kept pure through subsequent ages by His singular care and providence" refers to either the Majority Text or the Received Text. Some Reformed churches and denominations will use either a certain translation or certain translations in light of this.

Many will argue chapter 1 section 8 of the WCF and 2LBCF, specifically the phrase "were kept pure through subsequent ages by His singular care and providence" refers to either the Majority Text or the Received Text. Some Reformed churches and denominations will use either a certain translation or certain translations in light of this.

Click to expand...

So there would be some who indeed see that we should sue only the MT/TR based translations, but others would see that God preserved to us His word also in CT then, and versions based upon it?

So there would be some who indeed see that we should sue only the MT/TR based translations.....

Click to expand...

I am not a legal expert, but filing suit against various translations could be problematic. For one, the translations would be unable to defend themselves before a jury of their peers or to answer questions required. Secondly, said translations could not afford proper counsel, so one would have to be appointed them by the court. Thirdly, those various translation may get together and file a "class-action" counter suit, which could be costly!

The Scripture proofs quoted in the confessions used are from the KJV, does this matter?

Click to expand...

I think it does if one adopts the received text (Masoretic/TR and its variants) view: that which has been kept pure and received as such is the one being used in the confessions.

If corruption is assumed, then enter all the critical textual views. If you do not think corruption has occurred—per the received text view—then the matter of typical textual criticism is moot and one wonders how one can hold to a critical text view at all under that assumption.

I recognize how the above will possibly derail the thread, so let's resist the temptation and simply search out other threads where the discussion has been beaten to death.

I think it does if one adopts the received text (Masoretic/TR and its variants) view: that which has been kept pure and received as such is the one being used in the confessions.

If corruption is assumed, then enter all the critical textual views. If you do not think corruption has occurred—per the received text view—then the matter of typical textual criticism is moot and one wonders how one can hold to a critical text view at all under that assumption.

I recognize how the above will possibly derail the thread, so let's resist the temptation and simply search out other threads where the discussion has been beaten to death.

Click to expand...

So there would seem to be the position held that the MT/TR Greek texts, and the KJV/NKJV would be the most considered correct for use, but that there has been no "official" stance taken that says one cannot use the CT and the translations derived from it?

So there would seem to be the position held that the MT/TR Greek texts, and the KJV/NKJV would be the most considered correct for use, but that there has been no "official" stance taken that says one cannot use the CT and the translations derived from it?

Click to expand...

There is a position taken by the received text proponent, that the KJV was the one that was received.

The NKJV, while claiming to be faithful to the MT/TR, violates that claim in actually translating some texts from CT manuscripts. The NKJV also offers an "apparatus" in footnotes indicating alternatives from CT manuscripts that would lead the uninformed to actually doubting that which is being read. It would have been better if the NKJV translators actually remained steadfast to just translating from TR alone.

As to an "official" stance, that all depends upon how one views history and the development of the confessions.

There are no historical confessions that make a claim to any translation explicit. Instead the claim is implicit, as in the case of the WCF, wherein KJV is clearly the translation in view via the witness of the proof texts used by the church divines when creating the confession (see for example, WCF 2.3 and 1 John 5:7).

The divines were adamant that everything contained within the WCF be supported by Scripture. The proof texts used point to the translation obviously being considered and defended in the WCF as received (a fixed text, not one that is in a frequent state of change as in the CT).

There is a position taken by the received text proponent, that the KJV was the one that was received.

The NKJV, while claiming to be faithful to the MT/TR, violates that claim in actually translating some texts from CT manuscripts. The NKJV also offers an "apparatus" in footnotes indicating alternatives from CT manuscripts that would lead the uninformed to actually doubting that which is being read. It would have been better if the NKJV translators actually remained steadfast to just translating from TR alone.

As to an "official" stance, that all depends upon how one views history and the development of the confessions.

There are no historical confessions that make a claim to any translation explicit. Instead the claim is implicit, as in the case of the WCF, wherein KJV is clearly the translation in view via the witness of the proof texts used by the church divines when creating the confession (see for example, WCF 2.3 and 1 John 5:7).

The divines were adamant that everything contained within the WCF be supported by Scripture. The proof texts used point to the translation obviously being considered and defended in the WCF as received (a fixed text, not one that is in a frequent state of change as in the CT).

Click to expand...

What ever translations though could they have chosen to use, and if the Confessions were to be done for the first time today, would there not be many more translations to choose from though?
The NKJV as it indicates the others choices is helpful to use though, a shtink that shows that not every word in any of the used texts was all perfectly copy of the originals.

What ever versions could they have considered though for the standard text at that time of creating the Confessions, and would they have been authoring the 1611 KJV, as the later revisions were not made as of yet? And would not the Geneva and Tyndale also meet the criteria? the feature of the NKJV in indicating different choices were available to use does show to us that all source texts have some degree of guessing involved as to which would be the right choice to make, as no Greek text today is an exact copy od the Originals.

There is a position taken by the received text proponent, that the KJV was the one that was received.

The NKJV, while claiming to be faithful to the MT/TR, violates that claim in actually translating some texts from CT manuscripts. The NKJV also offers an "apparatus" in footnotes indicating alternatives from CT manuscripts that would lead the uninformed to actually doubting that which is being read. It would have been better if the NKJV translators actually remained steadfast to just translating from TR alone.

Click to expand...

So as not to beat the dead horse, b/c I massively disagree w/ you here, can you point where this has been hashed out? I see no examples of either the NKJV violating their textual sources (the TR) nor that the NKJV offers an "apparatus" any more than any other translation, like the original 1611 for that matter.

I would argue that allowing certain types of textual criticism is more consistent with the historic reformed view of the preservation of scripture than forbidding all textual criticism. The following is an excerpt from the 1675 Helvetic Consensus, adopted by the Swiss Reformed Churches to combat rejection of inerrancy, amyraldianism, and other errors:

Canon 1: God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have his word, which is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believes" (Rom 1:16), committed to writing by Moses, the Prophets and the Apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with paternal care from the time it was written up to the present, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man. Therefore the Church justly ascribes to it his singular grace and goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world (2 Pet 1:19), a "sure word of prophecy" and "Holy Scriptures" (2 Tim 3:15), from which though heaven and earth pass away, "the smallest letter or the least stroke of a pen will not disappear by any means" (Matt 5:18).

Canon II: But, in particular, The Hebrew original of the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Hebrew Church, "who had been given the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but in its vowels either the vowel points themselves, or at least the power of the points not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired by God. It thus forms, together with the Original of the NT the sole and complete rule of our faith and practice; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, eastern or western, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.

Canon III: Therefore, we are not able to approve of the opinion of those who believe that the text which the Hebrew Original exhibits was determined by man's will alone, and do not hesitate at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider unsuitable, and amend it from the versions of the LXX and other Greek versions, the Samaritan Pentateuch, by the Chaldaic Targums, or even from other sources. They go even to the point of following the corrections that their own rational powers dictate from the various readings of the Hebrew Original itself which, they maintain, has been corrupted in various ways; and finally, they affirm that besides the Hebrew edition of the present time, there are in the versions of the ancient interpreters which differ from our Hebrew text, other Hebrew Originals. Since these versions are also indicative of ancient Hebrew Originals differing from each other, they thus bring the foundation of our faith and its sacred authority into perilous danger.

Not particularly b/c the original WCF didn't use proof-texts. Parliament forced them to add that later.

Click to expand...

The Assembly was bound by avowal to scriptural authority in all its deliberations. The eventual inclusion of the proofs reflects the scriptural authority upon which the Assembly's formulations were based. Consider, WCF 2.3, "in the unity of the Godhead", for which the Assembly used 1 John 5:7, a passage disputed by the CT proponents.

Yes, it is true that the divines did not like the idea of using proof texts. Nevertheless, unable to persuade Parliament (which had its own motives for the demand) to the contrary, no warrant exists from historical writings that would imply or assume that the Assembly did not undertake the effort to add proof texts seriously. For example,

So as not to beat the dead horse, b/c I massively disagree w/ you here, can you point where this has been hashed out? I see no examples of either the NKJV violating their textual sources (the TR) nor that the NKJV offers an "apparatus" any more than any other translation, like the original 1611 for that matter.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that they translators did use for their renderings the same sources as the 1611 team had, but also did cite viable variant alternatives from the MT/CT when warranted.

The Assembly was bound by avowal to scriptural authority in all its deliberations. The eventual inclusion of the proofs reflects the scriptural authority upon which the Assembly's formulations were based. Consider, WCF 2.3, "in the unity of the Godhead", for which the Assembly used 1 John 5:7, a passage disputed by the CT proponents.

Yes, it is true that the divines did not like the idea of using proof texts. Nevertheless, unable to persuade Parliament (which had its own motives for the demand) to the contrary, no warrant exists from historical writings that would imply or assume that the Assembly did not undertake the effort to add proof texts seriously. For example,

"Consider, WCF 2.3, "in the unity of the Godhead", for which the Assembly used 1 John 5:7, a passage disputed by the CT proponents."

That was the example I was thinking of. It seems that, to be consistent, we must say that viewing 1 John 5:7 as Scripture IS the Confessional position (despite many of the Reformed saying that it was a later addition).

So would the majority position be that while the TR and the KJV would be the preferred ones , there would still be permitted one to use versions such as say the Nas/ESV also?

Click to expand...

I have not stated what the "majority position" is at all, as I am unaware of any church surveys by General Assemblies, etc., that could shed light on the matter. I may be recalling poorly, but I "think" there is but one NAPARC group that has a stated view in favor of the KJV in their church policy materials.

...if the Confessions were to be done for the first time today, would there not be many more translations to choose from though?

Click to expand...

Believing what they believed, they would stick with the underlying texts that were used to translate the Tyndale bible and the KJV. My understanding is that all the critical text readings that are known of today were also known to those who made the KJV translation.

Believing what they believed, they would stick with the underlying texts that were used to translate the Tyndale bible and the KJV. My understanding is that all the critical text readings that are known of today were also known to those who made the KJV translation.

Click to expand...

They did not have any access to the sources used for the Critical Greek text though, as those were discovered after they did the 1611 translation.

The position advocated on those links though would be based upon KJVO, and that would mean that it would be dubious at best.

Click to expand...

What do you find therein to be akin to what is commonly described as KJVO? You are reading into what has been posted and discussed in the actual thread where these links appear. Read the entire thread, please. The samples I provided above were meant to speak to the NKJV matter.

What do you find therein to be akin to what is commonly described as KJVO? You are reading into what has been posted and discussed in the actual thread where these links appear. Read the entire thread, please. The samples I provided above were meant to speak to the NKJV matter.

Click to expand...

The persons who wrote those articles though are part of the KJVO camp, are they not?

...was related to your comment about the NKJV translators. Further, my response linked above was to signal that this thread is in danger of being derailed if you are going down the path of an examination of "KJV vs. NKJV", especially given the link I provided to a discussion about that very topic in detail.

Attempting to smuggle in some KJVO rhetoric seems to me to be poisoning the well. I won't take the bait, David. If you want to start some new thread about whatever is on your mind related to the matter of KJVO, feel free to do so.

...was related to your comment about the NKJV translators. Further, my response linked above was to signal that this thread is in danger of being derailed if you are going down the path of an examination of "KJV vs. NKJV", especially given the link I provided to a discussion about that very topic in detail.

Attempting to smuggle in some KJVO rhetoric seems to me to be poisoning the well. I won't take the bait, David. If you want to start some new thread about whatever is on your mind related to the matter of KJVO, feel free to do so.

Click to expand...

I have no desire to "bait you", or anyone else on this OP, as my reply was just that those links you posted were from various Kjvo holders, and they have the mindset so strict on the KJV being literally inspired by God and a perfect English translation, that whatever they stated on the NKJV would have to be suspect.

Try to avoid using the genetic fallacy that would prevent you from learning what others have to say. If one is discerning, separating wheat from chaff is possible and can be edifying. If all one seeks is an echo chamber, no progress is made in one's walk of faith or education.

Try to avoid using the genetic fallacy that would prevent you from learning what others have to say. If one is discerning, separating wheat from chaff is possible and can be edifying. If all one seeks is an echo chamber, no progress is made in one's walk of faith or education.

Click to expand...

I understand your concerns, and do try to learn all that can be gleaned, but their presumptions are so skewed in one way that they refuse to accept any information that might undermine their position, they refuse to practice what you told me to do with their own information.

Share This Page

About us

The Puritan Board is a forum dedicated to the discussion of Christian theology in a Confessionally Reformed context. We are dedicated to our historic Creeds and Confessions because we believe they are faithful to the Scriptures.